---> AACW 1.05 Patch <---

[runyan99]

There is Patterson, but you all know by now that you should now give him a division.

Respectfully, I think that is the wrong way to think about it. You may know that Patterson disappears, and not to give him a division which might disappear too, and I might know it, but someone who buys the game tomorrow might not know it, and if the troops disappear, then he will have been bitten by the bug.

So, why not just leave Patterson in the game, and the Union player can use him to garrison California or something?

[blackbellamy]

How about instead of removing leaders, you fix them. That way they can just sit there doing nothing and the player can detach any subordinate units and carry on.

[kgsan]

Respectfully, I think that is the wrong way to think about it. You may know that Patterson disappears, and not to give him a division which might disappear too, and I might know it, but someone who buys the game tomorrow might not know it, and if the troops disappear, then he will have been bitten by the bug.

So, why not just leave Patterson in the game, and the Union player can use him to garrison California or something?

I agree. When units stacked with a leader vanish when he is removed by events, that sounds like a bug. If the game engine won't allow the event to be fixed (or it's simply not worth the time and effort to fix with other things to work on) then all such events should probaby just be dropped/deactivated.

[runyan99]

How about instead of removing leaders, you fix them. That way they can just sit there doing nothing and the player can detach any subordinate units and carry on.

Well, for one thing you cannot add or remove elements from fixed stacks.

[runyan99]

By the way, what happens to a division in 1.05 when the brigadier is killed? Does the division shatter to bits, or does the division remain intact, allowing the player to simply add a replacement leader at no cost?

[Hobbes]

I agree. When units stacked with a leader vanish when he is removed by events, that sounds like a bug. If the game engine won't allow the event to be fixed (or it's simply not worth the time and effort to fix with other things to work on) then all such events should probaby just be dropped/deactivated.

I agree! This sounds like a fairly serious bug to me and what does happen if he is killed in battle - does that not have the same effect as killed by an event?

[Franciscus]

If I may, I would suggest that the best (and easiest way) is simply to drop all events that "artificially" remove generals from the game. After all, as someone already said in these forums, we are re-writing story, nor re-living it.
One good point against these events is simply: If you keep some of them, than why do you not remove Jackson in 1863 by event ?

[jimkehn]

Good point, Franciscus. Wouldn't people how if Jackson was removed? I think the removals should just be eliminated. Let US decide who will be in command and who will be irrelevant.

[runyan99]

The only two leaders who I do think need the removal events are W. Scott and S. Cooper. Other than these two, I'm all for player choices and battle casualties deciding the fate of the rest.

[jimwinsor]

It would be nice, however, to have a possibility for a totally random non-battle removal from the war. Whether it be due to a jealous husband (Van Dorn), miscarriage of justice (Porter), shot by a fellow general (W. Nelson) or what not, a very low random chance for fate to remove ANY general from the war. Perhaps a chance for a temporary incapacity as well (ie, Sherman's insanity leave). Could also apply to generals who left for career reasons (Scott, Cooper, Fremont, McClellan, Patterson, etc...).

Another thing too, the event engine could be used to kill or wound three star commanders (AS Johnston, J Johnston), something currently not possible in battle casualties.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[blackbellamy]

@lensman: first page this thread

does the AI know not to give commands to leaders who will be removed?

[jhdeerslayer]

What does v1.05a change?

1.05a is up, same link: (no dedicated readme)

a) Fremont is not removed from the game by event anymore.

b) The Trent affair had a garbled title and text.

c) In some cases, a general + a brigade would not split correctly.

[milesjb]

Do we add the RemoveDivHQ=0 as the very last line in the gen.opt file or does it have to go in a specific place in the file?

[Mike]

Jim and I restarted our PBEM game with 1.05. Using the new division rule as Billy Yank I was able to organize a pretty decent army in June of '61 of 2 corp with 2 and 3 divisions respectively, and the main army with 3 divisions in reserve under McDowell. Not very historical.

[jimwinsor]

Do we add the RemoveDivHQ=0 as the very last line in the gen.opt file or does it have to go in a specific place in the file?

I successfully added it to the middle of the file (with the other "rules" files).

[Clovis]

Jim and I restarted our PBEM game with 1.05. Using the new division rule as Billy Yank I was able to organize a pretty decent army in June of '61 of 2 corp with 2 and 3 divisions respectively, and the main army with 3 divisions in reserve under McDowell. Not very historical.

I'm currently testing some modifications to the april 61 setup.

In short:

- no division for both CSA and USA until september 61
- no 2 star generals at start ( with one exception for Polks)

As a result, McDowell army is a mess, Patterson group can be formed as corps of the former but is too totally uneffective.

[jimkehn]

PBEM'ing with Mike above. I'm still undecided if I like the new rules or not. Div commanders take a big hit on their ratings??? Is that WAD?? I liked the old rules and wished for no changes here, but we'll see. Maybe I'll like them in awhile. I just think the effort could have been spent on something more meaningful. Read further.

I mainly wish, now, that the weather was fixed. Early June and Houston is under a blanket of snow?? While Detroit and upstate New York has fair weather??????????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[runyan99]

I'm still undecided if I like the new rules or not. Div commanders take a big hit on their ratings??? Is that WAD??

Should just be for the first turn after the division is formed, to reflect organization time, and as a game mechanic to discourage breaking up and reforming divisions at will. Did you read the documentation with the patch?

[jimkehn]

Uh........no.

But I thought I read something about it on one of the other threads.

[caranorn]

I think one of the problems currently is the addition of generic 2* generals (by the way D. Hunter exists twice, once with his division and once as a generic 1862 leader). These once again allow the Union player to form multiple corps early on. Maybe these leaders, at least those from 1861, should arrive as 1* only.

[Conhugeco]

If we want to be historical then the Union should be able to form divisions and corps earlier than the Confederacy. McDowell's force was not a mess at 1st Bull Run. It was much better organized than Beauregard's force. The former had five organized divisions, while the latter had two independent forces composed of brigades.

Superior Union organization is one of the reasons that McDowell was able to start the battle with a brilliant flanking maneuver on the rebel left that caught them completely off guard. Beauregard wanted to do the same thing to McDowell's left, but was greatly hampered by the inferior organization of his force, the result of which was the surrender of the initiative to McDowell.

Yes, the Union lost the battle, but it was a close run thing, and we don't want to learn the wrong lessons from any of the real battles and campaigns.

Dick

[Mike]

I'm currently testing some modifications to the april 61 setup.

In short:

- no division for both CSA and USA until september 61
- no 2 star generals at start ( with one exception for Polks)

As a result, McDowell army is a mess, Patterson group can be formed as corps of the former but is too totally uneffective.

I would disagree with the no division rule on historical basis. Not sure when divisional organizations started appearing elsewhere. Maybe limit the divisions to the historical 5 mix until later. I sort of like the new rule and I sort of don't, I'll just have to play with it and see how badly it can be abused. Right now divisions start showing up as soon as the first round of regiments appear.

[Clovis]

I would disagree with the no division rule on historical basis. Not sure when divisional organizations started appearing elsewhere. Maybe limit the divisions to the historical 5 mix until later. I sort of like the new rule and I sort of don't, I'll just have to play with it and see how badly it can be abused. Right now divisions start showing up as soon as the first round of regiments appear.

US divisions at the first Bull Run were inoperant. They were pure "paper" units, by lack of skilled officers, common training or real oraganization.

But in game term a 1861 division has the same efficiency a 1865 has, which is giving to USA at start a huge advantage, with a Mc DOWELL stack firmly organized facing BEAUREGARD AND JOHNSTON with stack penalties.

If Mc DOWELL plan was sound, all accounts of the battle shows he was unable to cordonate the whole army during the battle because divisional level was from the battle start unable to cope with the changes on the battlefield.

So in game term, divisions must be created when they were real organizations, a few months after the start.

I would do the same with corps but current system doesn't allow this.

Under public and political pressure to begin offensive operations, McDowell was given very little time to train the newly inducted troops. Units were instructed in the maneuvering of regiments, but they received little or no training at the brigade or division level. In fact, on one occasion, when McDowell reviewed eight infantry regiments at one time, the visiting General Scott chastised him for “trying to make a big show.”

First Bull Run was a clash between relatively large, ill-trained bodies of recruits, led by inexperienced officers. Neither army commander was able to deploy his forces effectively, only 18,000 men from each side were actually engaged. Although McDowell had been active on the battlefield, he had expended most of his energy maneuvering nearby regiments and brigades, instead of controlling and coordinating the movements of his army as a whole. Other factors contributed to McDowell’s defeat: Patterson’s failure to hold Johnston in the valley; McDowell’s two-day delay at Centreville; allowing Tyler’s division to lead the march on 21 July thus delaying the flanking divisions of Hunter and Heintzelman; and the 2 1/2-hour delay after the Union victory on Matthews’ Hill, which allowed the Confederates to bring up reinforcements and establish a defensive position on Henry Hill.

On Henry Hill Beauregard had also limited his control to the regimental level, generally allowing the battle to continue on its own and only reacting to Union moves. Johnston’s decision to transport his infantry to the battlefield by rail played a major role in the Confederate victory. Although the trains were slow and a lack of sufficient cars did not allow the transport of large numbers of troops at one time, almost all of his army arrived in time to participate in the battle. After reaching Manassas Junction, Johnston had relinquished command of the battlefield to Beauregard, but his forwarding of reinforcements to the scene of fighting was decisive.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/StaffRide/1st%20Bull%20Run/Overview.htm#b1

[McNaughton]

I don't see the situation as dire as being proposed.

First, the Union force should be in divisional command, as they historically were organized, and indeed fought as such. Because they proved ineffective goes more toward the commanders, rather than the organization. It is a matter of green troops and green commanders not given the correct time to organize themselves. IMO, it would be better to have the troops arrive in organization that has them as separate brigades, where the player/AI must organize them into divisions (with the cost and appropriate penalties).

Second, I can very easily organize the Confederate Army of the Potomac into a very effective fighting force. Primarily because you can immediately create a second corps unit, you can alleviate the command strain. In the end, this is what is important, eliminating, or mitigating, command penalties. Also, without Hunter as a possible corps commander, the Union divisions will all be fighting under penalties either grouped, or fighting individually. The Confederates are in a good position, as having more Corps initially is more important than having more divisions.

Actually, I have a few suggestions regarding the Confederate starting orders of battle.

1. Lower all rankings of Major Generals to Brigadier Generals. It is too easy to alleviate command problems. You should be limited to an army under Beauregard, and a corps under Johnston. You should be encouraged to merge the two, and balance forces to alleviate command penalties, without easily creating a second corps from the Potomac forces. Any commander with lowered command ratings should be on the verge of promotion, that one battle (i.e., 1st Bull Run) would have them promotable to new commands. This way, in order to reorganize forces you have to actually go through combat.

2. Some missing Brigadiers should be applied to brigade command if they actually served. For example, Longstreet should be in command of his brigade in 1861, yet does not appear until later. His rank should be brigadier, and appear in command of his brigade (he should have enough seniority to be quickly promoted once engaged in battle). Ewell, Jones and Early come to mind as others who should probably be deployed with their brigades. This may serve to improve the starting Confederate situation in lieu of Federals having Divisions.

[richfed]

Good suggestions, NcNaughton!

I like this latest patch ... the only thing I have noticed is - in my limited starts of the full campaign with 1.05a - is that Polk & Huger no longer seem to be promotable at their activation. Is this by design?

[richfed]

Good point, Franciscus. Wouldn't people how if Jackson was removed? I think the removals should just be eliminated. Let US decide who will be in command and who will be irrelevant.

Personally, I like the events and think they should remain as possibilities, not necessarily sure things ... the odds might vary depending on the particular event and/or the situation, ala foreign intervention. The forces associated with the leader eliminated by event should, I think, remain in play.

That's my 2 cents worth.

[McNaughton]

Personally, I like the events and think they should remain as possibilities, not necessarily sure things ... the odds might vary depending on the particular event and/or the situation, ala foreign intervention. The forces associated with the leader eliminated by event should, I think, remain in play.

That's my 2 cents worth.

The concern is that the forces will be removed via the event (they get stuck to the leader), so until or if this gets changed, all leader removal events should be eliminated (so support units and troops do not disappear as well).

[Conhugeco]

Thanks for the information about the western armies McNaughton. I inadvertently fell into the "Virginia-centric" mentality. Shame on me, since I should know better.

However, I'm not entirely convinced about the East. The Peninsula Campaign was almost a full year into the war, and I do think that it says something that the Confederate army (not the ANV until just before the Seven Days) was still organized into big blobby divisions. Lee had an excellent plan of attack, but command confusion and inefficiency greatly contributed to the limited success of the operation. Yes, I'm serious. The Union won almost every battle of the Seven Days, but McClellan retreated anyway. He did so not because of the brilliantly organized, well-oiled machinery that was the ANV, but because he had already decided that he was defeated, and made it happen (who says that he couldn't set and meet goals? ).

I would not rate Longstreet and Jackson as Corps commanders until just before the campaign to suppress Pope. Ok, maybe, maybe Jackson, but definitely not Longstreet. Officially they still weren't corps commanders even during Second Manassas/Antietam, but I grant that for all intents and purposes they were commanding corps by then.

The wing arrangement during the Seven Days was an ad hoc attempt by Lee to rectify the obvious deficiency of the Army's command structure. It didn't work very well, and the Confederates paid the price for it. Is it really just because Jackson slept during most of the Seven Days that the troops under his command contributed almost nothing to the battles that was the result of this wing/corps arrangement? If it was a corps, I would rate it as a pretty lousy one.

Is it just a coincidence that the divisions of Longstreet's wing/corps couldn't seem to find the right road to march on to save their lives, and resembled more closely the Keystone Cops than a well organized corps?

On a bit of a tangent, but related to command and leadership, how can the game represent the particularly prickly pride of southern officers? Had Jackson lived longer, he would have eventually arrested every officer under his command, and I suspect not always without reason. "General Garnett, you are under arrest! General Hill, you are under arrest! General Hood, you are under arrest! Captain, you may move your division."

McNaughton, I do like your suggestions regarding the Confederate starting orders of battle. Should maybe look to see if something similar should apply to the Union as well.

Dick

[Clovis]

I don't see the situation as dire as being proposed.

First, the Union force should be in divisional command, as they historically were organized, and indeed fought as such. Because they proved ineffective goes more toward the commanders, rather than the organization. It is a matter of green troops and green commanders not given the correct time to organize themselves. IMO, it would be better to have the troops arrive in organization that has them as separate brigades, where the player/AI must organize them into divisions (with the cost and appropriate penalties).

Second, I can very easily organize the Confederate Army of the Potomac into a very effective fighting force. Primarily because you can immediately create a second corps unit, you can alleviate the command strain. In the end, this is what is important, eliminating, or mitigating, command penalties. Also, without Hunter as a possible corps commander, the Union divisions will all be fighting under penalties either grouped, or fighting individually. The Confederates are in a good position, as having more Corps initially is more important than having more divisions.

First, game penalties have an one turn duration, so forming divisions at the end of june will give fully operational force at the start of July.

Iv'veno complaint against the game mechanism here, but creation ex nihilo of divisions made of brigades newly created from regiment just formed with green troops ( the case in 1861) is just different from creation with at least some experienced officers and troops the next year.

So with the lack of any rules for this exceptional situation, only a delay into permitting divisions formation can solve the problem, even against AI CSA.

Otherwise, any USA player can create a MCDOWELL army far superior thanks to the lack of command penalties to the CSA. Even with an unactive McDowell, or McClelland, the USA army can take the "offensive" into Virginia and win without risk the first encounter. First Bull Run was a close affair indeed, and with the current system, there's no chance for CSA ( and especially CSA AI) to challenge the Union.



Second, I removed all 2 star generals to avoid corps ( AI creating corps with Jonhston in the Shenendoah as part of CSA Potomac army, which by some ways isn't too far from reality).